The origins of Adam = Ancient of Days

[David T]

If we look in the scriptures, the first reference to Adam being associated with the Ancient of Days appears to be D&C 27. However, the section that references this was not part of the original revelation (which can be seen here)

The elements referring to Adam as Ancient of Days do not appear in any printed version (or any extant manuscripts) of the revelation until the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

You may note that when such references are made (only three times in the D&C), it is never stated or presented that this was a revealed connection - the term is being used as descriptive, as if it's something that is already known.

Well, I've been reading through the original Church periodicals, Evening and Morning Star, and now Messenger and Advocate. Within those are a few serialized sets of articles written by Sidney Rigdon. Because of their incredibly dense nature, I have been mostly skimming over them. Only now have I begun compiling them together to read as a body.

In formatting them to do so, I came across this statement from the May 1834 edition of the Evening and Morning Star, in Rigdon's 'Millennium, no. V': (Rigdon is revealed as the author in the 2nd volume of the Messenger and Advocate):

In the 24 chapter of Isaiah, and 23 verse, the prophet, after having described one of the greatest desolations ever pronounced on the head of any generation of men, says, "Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously."We have before s een that this reign was to last a thousand years; and his ancients, before whom he was to reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, gloriously, were all the redeemed from among men, of every tongue, language, kindred, and people.

According to Daniel, he was to come to the ancient of days: here he is said to reign before his ancients, that is, all the saints from our father Adam, down; for who could the ancient of days be but our father Adam? surely none other: he was the first who lived in days, and must be the ancient of days. And to whom would the Savior come, but to the father of all the race, and then receive his kingdom, in which he was to reign before, or with his ancients gloriously? Let it here be remarked, that it is said to be in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, where the Lord is to reign before his ancients gloriously.

The initial association of the title appears to be a conjecture by Sidney Rigdon, which was taught to Joseph, and was then applied in the scriptural texts which referred to Adam.

I did a check, and FAIR wiki doesn't reference this early message in its article on 'Ancient of Days'. It does, however, reference Joseph Smith's re-stating of the same material introduced in Rigdon's explanation in 1840. (in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 167)

Are there any earlier references in extant Church manuscripts/literature to Adam as Ancient of Days? Or is this musing by Rigdon indeed the earliest?

This was a fascinating discovery for me.

[WalkerW]

Very interesting.

I will note that at least one scholar has made the possible connection between Adam and the Ancient of Days. He compares Daniel's description of the Ancient of Days with that of the description of Adam in The Testament of Abraham:

"Abraham saw two ways, the one narrow and contracted, the other broad and spacious, and there he saw two gates, the one broad on the broad way, and the other narrow on the narrow way. And outside the two gates there he saw a man sitting upon a gilded throne, and the appearance of that man was terrible, as of the Lord. And they saw many souls driven by angels and led in through the broad gate, and other souls, few in number, that were taken by the angels through the narrow gate. And when the wonderful one who sat upon the golden throne saw few entering through the narrow gate, and many entering through the broad one, straightway that wonderful one tore the hairs of his head and the sides of his beard, and threw himself on the ground from his throne, weeping and lamenting. But when he saw many souls entering through the narrow gate, then he arose from the ground and sat upon his throne in great joy, rejoicing and exulting...This is the first-created Adam who is in such glory, and he looks upon the world because all are born from him, and when he sees many souls going through the narrow gate, then he arises and sits upon his throne rejoicing and exulting in joy, because this narrow gate is that of the just, that leads to life, and they that enter through it go into Paradise. For this, then, the first-created Adam rejoices, because he sees the souls being saved. But when he sees many souls entering through the broad gate, then he pulls out the hairs of his head, and casts himself on the ground weeping and lamenting bitterly, for the broad gate is that of sinners, which leads to destruction and eternal punishment. And for this the first-formed Adam falls from his throne weeping and lamenting for the destruction of sinners, for they are many that are lost, and they are few that are saved, for in seven thousand there is scarcely found one soul saved, being righteous and undefiled." (The Testament of Abraham XI)

"I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened." (Daniel 7:9-10)

Here are a few excerpts from the author's explanation:

"Like the Ancient of Days, Adam is enthroned in the presence of angels and is described as a 'terrifying' being who looks like the 'Master'. These motifs of angelic beings and terror are found in Daniel 7."

"By itself Adam's adornment in 'glory' does not render him godlike, but when his glorious appearance is coupled with the 'master's (God's) appearance, Adam's divine status appears to be implied...Thus, Adam's appearance makes him godlike."

"Adam is not called a judge in the Testament of Abraham, but he is part of the judgmental process...[T]he Ancient of Days is not explicitly called a judge in Daniel 7, but appears first in the judgment scene, just as Adam does in the Testament of Abraham."

"Perhaps even the title given to Adam, 'first-formed', which obviously can be understood as implying his great age or patriarchal stature, can be connected to the title 'Ancient of Days' in Daniel."

"A sampling of both the Adam literature and other related texts dealing with Adam's glorification reveals how Adam was believed by some to be exalted over all creation, great in size, innocent of sin, and even the creator. An examination of those texts dealing with Adam's enthronement, his position at the gate of Paradise and Hell, his divine likeness, and his overseeing of creation will provide a context which makes an Adam-Ancient of Days interpretation feasible." (Phillip B. Munoa, III, Four Power In Heaven: The Interpretation of Daniel 7 in the Testament of Abraham: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998)

[cinepro]

With the publishing of the Joseph Smith papers, perhaps the Church should clarify whether issues like you describe should be given weight in determining scriptural issues, or if we should consider anything in the Standard Works as the gospel truth, regardless of its origin.

[Lachoneus]

Are there any earlier references in extant Church manuscripts/literature to Adam as Ancient of Days? Or is this musing by Rigdon indeed the earliest?

41 Today's D & C 27:11. Although James E. Talmage's italic preface in today's version states that this part of the revelation was received by Joseph Smith in September 1830, it did not appear in the revelation as it was first published in either the Book of Commandments (Chapter XXVIII) or in The Evening and the Morning Star, vol. I (March 1833), no. 10; both of these were dated September 4, 1830, and both had identical texts. The added text which constitutes verse 11 in today's version was first published in the 1835 D & C (Section L). Joseph may not have first taught this principle until late 1833, for in a letter from Oliver Cowdery to John Whitmer, dated January 1, 1834 in Kirtland, he explained

[David T]

15 Dialogue (#1) 25, fnt 41 (1982)

Lachoneus:

Thanks for that reference. While it does shed some light on the origin of the Michael = Adam connection, it doesn't make a reference to the title Ancient of Days.

The footnote to the article you quoted also seems to indicate Oliver Cowdery was the writer of the Evening and Morning Star article I cited, when Oliver Cowdery (who was the editor of the paper) himself made clear that it was Sidney Rigdon.

Although Cowdery's familiarity with the contents of Rigdon's article, and the fact that those two were both involved in the compiling and editing of the 1835 D&C may have effected the editing and insertion of the title in the publication of that Revelation there. That would make sense, seeing as the Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations and Translations - Manuscript Revelation Books have illuminated much concerning the specific editing Cowdery and Rigdon each physically did in the revelations in the manuscript books.

[kamenraider]

These scriptures also mention Adam as the Ancient of Days:

D&C 116:1 Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

D&C 138:38 Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all,

Joseph Smith refers to Adam as the Ancient of Days too:

Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael...

--Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, pg. 104.

Commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the "Ancient of Days,"...

--Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 167.

[David T]

These scriptures also mention Adam as the Ancient of Days:

That's true, and I am aware of those. None of those, however, are written in such a way that imply the association of the title itself came from revelation, but its usage is instead descriptive, adding on a parenthetical title to Adam when he is referenced.

Or, as I put it in the OP:

You may note that when such references are made (only three times in the D&C), it is never stated or presented that this was a revealed connection - the term is being used as descriptive, as if it's something that is already known.

D&C 116, which is an excerpt from the History explaining information given in a revelation, adds on the title as a parenthetical after the personage of Adam is mentioned as being indicated, and then further makes reference to the Book of Daniel for context.

D&C 138 uses the title to describe the personage seen in vision by Joseph F. Smith, using the title which had been associated with Adam for years now, and he was certainly familiar with (it never states the name was declared, or spoken)

More importantly, none predate Rigdon's 1834 association as printed in the Church periodical. As far as I know, that's the earliest extant note of association. If anyone has an earlier reference, please let me know!

[kamenraider]

... None of those, however, are written in such a way that imply the association of the title itself came from revelation, ...

I bolded "said he" in this quote because it seems to me that it does imply that:

D&C 116:1 Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

It may be alluding to D&C 78, from March 1832, which is written in the past tense as a recounting of what the Lord said to Joseph Smith. The mention of the title "Ancient of Days" in D&C 116 could represent an additional detail that was recalled at that time.

D&C 28:6-7

6 And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church;

7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.

You know, nackhadlow, multiple Prophets have acknowledged Adam as being the Ancient of Days, so you'll excuse me if it's a little tough for me to accept the idea that they were just blindly accepting someone's speculation and could've been saved from their error by someone like yourself.

[David T]

You know, nackhadlow, multiple Prophets have acknowledged Adam as being the Ancient of Days, so you'll excuse me if it's a little tough for me to accept the idea that they were just blindly accepting someone's speculation

If it happened with something as important as the banning of Africans from the Priesthood, I'm certain it could have happened with something as harmless as a name association.

Although if you do have a documented reference before May 1834, I'd honestly be very happy to see it.

[kamenraider]

If it happened with something as important as the banning of Africans from the Priesthood, I'm certain it could have happened with something as harmless as a name association.

Although if you do have a documented reference before May 1834, I'd honestly be very happy to see it.

As far as I'm concerned, it didn't happen at all with the banning of Africans from the priesthood.

Joseph Smith referred to administering the endowment in 1842 as "setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings which have been prepared for the Church of the First Born...." Who is the "First Born" whose Church is being referred to here by Joseph Smith? Jesus Christ?

D&C 88:4-5

4 This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom;

5 Which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his Son

[David T]

Who is the "First Born" whose Church is being referred to here by Joseph Smith? Jesus Christ?

Yes.

D&C 93:21-22

21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;

22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.

The terms 'Church of the Firstborn', and 'Firstborn' itself are themselves originally New Testament references clearly referring to Christ.

Colossians 1:12-18

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Hebrews 12:23

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

There is no hint that either of them had Adam in mind - the subject of their discourses are clearly focused on titles and types of Christ and His role in His Kingdom.

And this is apart from the fact that In the D&C Jesus Christ himself says that he is the one being referred to as the Firstborn!

Again, while you can make all sorts of after-the-fact interpretive connections, they are irrelevant to what I'm seeking, as presented in the OP. What I'm looking for is a reference to a document before Rigdon's May 1834 article which specifically associates Adam with the term Ancient of Days. Anything else goes beyond the purpose of this thread.

[kamenraider]

Sure, Jesus Christ was the first-born spirit son, of course he is considered heir of all the Father has -- even the title of Firstborn, but which of the two was actually born first (either in spirit or in mortality)? The Father. It's the same with the title of Jehovah -- the Father had that title before the Son ever did, yet it has come to be used in the Church pretty much exclusively to refer to the Son. That doesn't mean that's correct though.

So do you believe that the Ancient of Days is God the Father and not Adam?

Who do you believe Adam's father was?

Do you believe that Adam holds "the keys of the universe" and "presides over the spirits of all men" (TPJS pg. 157)?

[David T]

Sure, Jesus Christ was the first-born spirit son, of course he is considered heir of all the Father has -- even the title of Firstborn, but which of the two was actually born first (either in spirit or in mortality)? The Father. It's the same with the title of Jehovah -- the Father had that title before the Son ever did, yet it has come to be used in the Church pretty much exclusively to refer to the Son. That doesn't mean that's correct though.

Jesus Christ specifically presents himself as the 'Firstborn' referred to in 'Church of the Firstborn' in the D&C. Since you brought up the term to show what you think Joseph meant by it, all else you have said is irrelevant to the point you tried to make.

So do you believe that the Ancient of Days is God the Father and not Adam?

Who do you believe Adam's father was?

Do you believe that Adam holds "the keys of the universe" and "presides over the spirits of all men" (TPJS pg. 157)?

This thread isn't about my belief, it's about discerning the initial textual reference and initial source to a very LDS-specific usage of terminology.

The Book of Daniel is most likely contemporary to such other Apocalyptic works such as 1 Enoch, which also features the 'Ancient of Days', who is also referred to as 'Lord of Spirits', and is placed, in a judgement scene, in the role of the Most High God, in which the Son of Man is reporting to him. Walker's article is interesting on this note (also being of note that the connection is unique). But the connection (or even the text under discussion) was certainly not widespreadly known, discussed, let alone interpreted in such a way and time that would grant Rigdon and Smith the initial idea.

I welcome any evidence that shows a prior usage of the term Ancient of Days to refer to Adam by someone associated with the Latter-day Saint Movement (including Joseph Smith) prior to the May 1834 publication which appears to present the concept as a logical conclusion/speculation by Rigdon.

Whether the connection was later confirmed by further revelation is not a point I am interested in at this point - I am looking for the earliest record of association of those two specific terms: "Ancient of Days", and "Adam", in the Restored Church.

[Gohan]

My knowledge on this subject is somewhat limited, but I thought I'd toss my .02 in while I'm on break. These scriptures came to mind while I was going through the posts here, I hope that they're somewhat relevant to the discussion.

Of course, Daniel 7:

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Then on to 1 Corinthians 15:

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

And toss in Romans 5:14 there for kicks and giggles.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam

[David T]

I'll say it again:

This thread isn't about my belief, it's about discerning the initial textual reference and initial source to a very LDS-specific usage of terminology.

I welcome any evidence that shows a prior usage of the term Ancient of Days to refer to Adam by someone associated with the Latter-day Saint Movement (including Joseph Smith) prior to the May 1834 publication which appears to present the concept as a logical conclusion/speculation by Rigdon.

Whether the connection was later confirmed by further revelation is not a point I am interested in at this point - I am looking for the earliest record of association of those two specific terms: "Ancient of Days", and "Adam", in the Restored Church.

[cinepro]

If it happened with something as important as the banning of Africans from the Priesthood, I'm certain it could have happened with something as harmless as a name association.

Although if you do have a documented reference before May 1834, I'd honestly be very happy to see it.

Huh, look at that. Maybe it really is a slippery slope...

[Ahab]

What I'm looking for is a reference to a document before Rigdon's May 1834 article which specifically associates Adam with the term Ancient of Days. Anything else goes beyond the purpose of this thread.

How about a little common sense, instead of limiting yourself to needing to see a document?

And btw, before I say anything else, I want to say you made a very good presentation for the idea that the Firstborn is indeed Jesus Christ, because the Church is and always will be His church, rather than the Church of Adam, or Michael, or anyone else... although all of us can be a member of it and in a sense we can say it's ours, too.

Anyway, to make a point based on common sense, I'd like you to consider why someone, whoever it is, is referred to as the Ancient of Days.

If the term 'Ancient of Days' was meant as a reference to Jesus Christ, don't you think it would be more correct to refer to him as the one who is Eternal, without beginning of days or end of years, rather than simply referring to him as "Ancient" ?

Anyway, that's my speel, and I just felt like sharing that much with you.

[David T]

How about a little common sense, instead of limiting yourself to needing to see a document?

This is not, by any means, a common association. I know of no other current branch of Christianity or Judaism who makes that connection, and certainly don't know of those who would have in the 1830s.

I am seeking out the beginning of this train of thought in the Restored Church, for the reason that it is unique.

And btw, before I say anything else, I want to say you made a very good presentation for the idea that the Firstborn is indeed Jesus Christ, because the Church is and always will be His church, rather than the Church of Adam, or Michael, or anyone else... although all of us can be a member of it and in a sense we can say it's ours, too.

Thank you.

Anyway, to make a point based on common sense, I'd like you to consider why someone, whoever it is, is referred to as the Ancient of Days.

If the term 'Ancient of Days' was meant as a reference to Jesus Christ, don't you think it would be more correct to refer to him as the one who is Eternal, without beginning of days or end of years, rather than simply referring to him as "Ancient" ?

Anyway, that's my speel, and I just felt like sharing that much with you.

I don't necessarily think Ancient of Days was meant as a reference to Christ, but as the Most High God. This is how the figure who takes the position that the Ancient of Days in Daniel generally takes in many of the similar Judgement Scenes to be found in contemporary Apocalyptic literature.

It is read by most as a reference to the oldest, most ancient of beings.

It may be of interest to note that another way the title of the individual who appears in 1 Enoch has been translated/rendered is the Antecedent of Days, who is also called 'Lord of Spirits'.

[Ahab]

This is not, by any means, a common association. I know of no other current branch of Christianity or Judaism who makes that connection, and certainly don't know of those who would have in the 1830s.

I am seeking out the beginning of this train of thought in the Restored Church, for the reason that it is unique.

I commend you for being inquisitive, and I hope you'll someday find the answer you are searching for in the way you would like to find it.

What I've learned about receiving revelation from God is that what's new to me isn't something nobody ever thought of before, but that they're new ideas to me, and it doesn't take a "document" for me to know when an idea is in harmony with God's knowledge of truth.

Hence, me simply wanting to try to give you the idea.

I don't necessarily think Ancient of Days was meant as a reference to Christ, but as the Most High God. This is how the figure who takes the position that the Ancient of Days in Daniel generally takes in many of the similar Judgement Scenes to be found in contemporary Apocalyptic literature.

It is read by most as a reference to the oldest, most ancient of beings.

It may be of interest to note that another way the title of the individual who appears in 1 Enoch has been translated/rendered is the Antecedent of Days, who is also called 'Lord of Spirits'.

I think a lot of people underestimate Adam's role as the parent of our race here on Earth, such that even Jesus Christ will be paying him homage. Remember, the atonement of Jesus Christ covers Adam's sin(s) too, such that Adam will be considered his parent just as much as our Father in heaven, and as the one who brought all of us into this world, including Jesus through Mary, he actually will be the "Most High God" among all of us who were born on this Earth, through Adam.

Not that his Father in heaven will be less than he is, but Adam is really going to be, if he isn't already, TOTALLY AWESOME !!!

[David T]

I commend you for being inquisitive, and I hope you'll someday find the answer you are searching for in the way you would like to find it.

What I've learned about receiving revelation from God is that what's new to me isn't something nobody ever thought of before, but that they're new ideas to me, and it doesn't take a "document" for me to know when an idea is in harmony with God's knowledge of truth.

Hence, me simply wanting to try to give you the idea.

I appreciate it.

The principles of Revelation have been a major emphases in my studies. What I have found fascinating was how much emphasis Joseph placed on Revelation through counsel. This was also re-iterated in the recent Worldwide Leadership Training meeting, that the seeds of revelation can originate from any source, but then need to be ratified through the inspiration of the Presiding Leader/Keyholder.

I find it possible that while the idea originated in the Church with a speculation by Rigdon (or otherwise), that it was later ratified through Joseph, and was the means by which further questions were asked, which resulted in further revealed knowledge and principles.

Part of what I am fascinated with discovering through my studies are the origins of the initial seeds that were planted which led to Revelations and further development of doctrinal concepts. Many fascinating such seeds are explored in Mark Staker's groundbreaking book Hearken O Ye People: The Historic Setting of Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations. An existing health code held by a society in Kirtland, for example, led Joseph to inquire on those specific substances mentioned in that code. The resultant Word of Wisdom incorporated and included significant aspects from that code, but also altered, removed, and added elements. Joseph didn't start from Zero most of the time, he asked questions based on existing doctrinal understanding, interpretations of texts, and other such things, and received inspired clarification, expansion, and re-definition of those things.

I feel it's highly possible that this is also what may have happened with the association of Adam with the Ancient of Days (and even perhaps Michael). The seed or idea came from once source, which perhaps led Joseph to ponder the ramifications, and resulted in further light and knowledge, and incorporation of the language of the concept into the Revelations. I find that far more likely, given the evidence, and the precedent, than the thought of the idea and terminology coming into his mind wholesale, even through revelation, without having pondered or asked about a seed that was planted.

My belief of Joseph as a Prophet is not in question. What I am constantly exploring is the nature of Revelation, and what questions were asked, when, and why, that resulted in what Joseph understood, believed, and taught.

Documenting the earliest reference to this 'seed' is useful in understanding the process further.

[J Green]

Nack,

Love the way you think. Thanks for all your contributions and your willingness to share.

[kamenraider]

This quote from Joseph Smith's December 1833 blessing given to his father is interesting because it mentions Adam being given patriarchal authority over all his posterity by the Lord, and then Joseph Smith, Sr. being given such authority under the Ancient of Days:

On the eighteenth day of December, 1833, the Prophet and a number of the leading Elders of the Church assembled in the printing office which had just been built and that office was dedicated by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Following this ceremony the Prophet proceeded to bless Oliver Cowdery and several members of the Smith family, after having conferred upon Joseph Smith, Sen., the office and Priesthood of Patriarch of the Church. The blessings follow.

...

Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch and Methuselah, who were High Priests, with the residue of his posterity, who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing. And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the Prince, the Archangel. And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him, I have set thee to be at the head: a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a Prince over them forever.

So shall it be with my father: he shall be called a prince over his posterity, holding the keys of the patriarchal Priesthood over the kingdom of God on earth, even the Church of the Latter-day Saints, and he shall sit in the general assembly of Patriarchs, even in council with the Ancient of Days when he shall sit and all the Patriarchs with him and shall enjoy his right and authority under the direction of the Ancient of Days.

--Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pgs. 38-39.

I understand that the account from Joseph Smith's journal is somewhat different than the one above by Oliver Cowdery, and doesn't include many of the things mentioned in this one, such as the reference to the Ancient of Days. I don't know if this is due to Oliver Cowdery's account being more complete, or if there were later interpolations or what, but it is interesting.

I thought I'd also include this one, because it suggests a revelatory source for the association of Adam with the title Ancient of Days:

Joseph Smith was the first man I ever heard try to tell who was meant by "The Ancient of Days" in the Book of Daniel. He said it was Father Adam and, says he, if you don't believe it, then get the Holy Ghost and see what it will tell you.

--"Autobiography of David Osborn," typescript copy, BYU Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Provo, Utah, pg. 70.

[David T]

This quote from Joseph Smith's December 1833 blessing given to his father is interesting because it mentions Adam being given patriarchal authority over all his posterity by the Lord, and then Joseph Smith, Sr. being given such authority under the Ancient of Days:

I understand that the account from Joseph Smith's journal is somewhat different than the one above by Oliver Cowdery, and doesn't include many of the things mentioned in this one, such as the reference to the Ancient of Days. I don't know if this is due to Oliver Cowdery's account being more complete, or if there were later interpolations or what, but it is interesting.

Thank you for the note. It is intriguing. Unfortunately, due to the fact that the term Ancient of Days only appears in Oliver Cowdery's September/October 1835 expansion of entries into the Blessing Book - which was chronologically following other known usages of Ancient of Days, it isn't extremely useful in determining the original usage (other revelations had been 'updated' to expand upon and reflect current understanding and language and terminology as well in 1835). Thank you for both bringing this source to my attention, as well acknowledging the Cowdery redaction.

I thought I'd also include this one, because it suggests a revelatory source for the association of Adam with the title Ancient of Days:

Thank you for that. It could indicate such a thing. It also, however, doesn't remove the possibility that Joseph himself learned it from another source, and had it confirmed by the Holy Ghost (which is what David Osborn appears to being invited to do). When was the autobiography written?

Thanks again for the references!

[Ahab]

The principles of Revelation have been a major emphases in my studies. What I have found fascinating was how much emphasis Joseph placed on Revelation through counsel. This was also re-iterated in the recent Worldwide Leadership Training meeting, that the seeds of revelation can originate from any source, but then need to be ratified through the inspiration of the Presiding Leader/Keyholder.

I see that ratification as a procedural issue intended to help people avoid making mistakes, rather than something everyone needs before knowing the truth, though.

I've had many experiences where God assured me that was something was true, and at that moment I knew it, and then later finding out that leaders of the Church had already taught that in some of their discourses. Thus, what was new to me wasn't new, or unique, because that precept had already been taught even though I didn't know about that previous event.

I find it possible that while the idea originated in the Church with a speculation by Rigdon (or otherwise), that it was later ratified through Joseph, and was the means by which further questions were asked, which resulted in further revealed knowledge and principles.

I've found that to be possible, too, based on some of my own previous experiences. Sometimes an idea comes directly from God to someone, without that person hearing it from anyone else before that, and sometimes an idea comes from someone else who is sharing the idea, at which point God will then confirm to that other person that what he has heard is the truth.

Part of what I am fascinated with discovering through my studies are the origins of the initial seeds that were planted which led to Revelations and further development of doctrinal concepts.

There is no overall origin to all of it. Truth is eternal, and there is no first person who started it all. People get different ideas, either from God or from Satan or from someone either of those persons inspired, but God, our Father, got his ideas from someone before him, and so did Satan, with no beginning to where it all came from, and with each of us picking up a little bit here and a little bit there according to who we seek to learn from and the desire in our hearts to keep learning.

So, in other words, if you're looking for someone who had that idea before Oliver, you can trace it to either God or Satan (I say it's from God), as well as to anyone else who had that idea before Oliver and somehow transmitted it to him, just as you'll find the same thing to be true regarding Joseph's ideas, and anyone else's ideas.

Many fascinating such seeds are explored in Mark Staker's groundbreaking book Hearken O Ye People: The Historic Setting of Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations.

So what are you going to do now? Wait for Mark's ideas to be ratified by the President of our Church? Ask God to confirm what Mark is saying? Or go on in an eternal quest to determine who gave Mark those ideas, and who gave that person those ideas, etc, etc, etc, trying to find EVERYBODY who ever had the same thoughts?

An existing health code held by a society in Kirtland, for example, led Joseph to inquire on those specific substances mentioned in that code. The resultant Word of Wisdom incorporated and included significant aspects from that code, but also altered, removed, and added elements. Joseph didn't start from Zero most of the time, he asked questions based on existing doctrinal understanding, interpretations of texts, and other such things, and received inspired clarification, expansion, and re-definition of those things.

That's a good way to put it, but realize that while you're saying Joseph didn't start from Zero most of the time, there were also some times when nobody but God gave him the ideas he received with him being the one to share those ideas with others before they had heard them from anyone else.

I feel it's highly possible that this is also what may have happened with the association of Adam with the Ancient of Days (and even perhaps Michael). The seed or idea came from once source, which perhaps led Joseph to ponder the ramifications, and resulted in further light and knowledge, and incorporation of the language of the concept into the Revelations. I find that far more likely, given the evidence, and the precedent, than the thought of the idea and terminology coming into his mind wholesale, even through revelation, without having pondered or asked about a seed that was planted.

Yes, that's possible, too, but rather than seeking out a mortal person when trying to find out where the ideas came from, I hope you're mainly interested in finding out whether or not the idea is something God approves of, or if instead it was inspired by Satan, since those are our 2 main sources of all knowledge concerning either good or evil.

My belief of Joseph as a Prophet is not in question. What I am constantly exploring is the nature of Revelation, and what questions were asked, when, and why, that resulted in what Joseph understood, believed, and taught.

Okay. My focus is more on finding out whether ideas are inspired by either God or Satan, rather than getting down to the level of detail you seem to be focusing on.

Documenting the earliest reference to this 'seed' is useful in understanding the process further.

In my approach, all I need to start with is an idea, which I will usually put in the form of a question while asking God what he thinks about it.

Documents are useful to me sometimes too, though, because seeing ideas from others in written form is one of the ways that I get some ideas.

[David T]

There is no overall origin to all of it. Truth is eternal, and there is no first person who started it all. People get different ideas, either from God or from Satan or from someone either of those persons inspired, but God, our Father, got his ideas from someone before him, and so did Satan, with no beginning to where it all came from, and with each of us picking up a little bit here and a little bit there according to who we seek to learn from and the desire in our hearts to keep learning.

I thought I made it clear I was looking for the origins of the thought in the context of the Restored Church, IE, the beginning of the idea being expressed among a select group of people in a select period of time. My question is chiefly historical, not theological. There are certainly theological implications, but that the information I am currently seeking is historical.

So what are you going to do now? Wait for Mark's ideas to be ratified by the President of our Church? Ask God to confirm what Mark is saying? Or go on in an eternal quest to determine who gave Mark those ideas, and who gave that person those ideas, etc, etc, etc, trying to find EVERYBODY who ever had the same thoughts?

Staker's book is a history book, not theological. It documents the historical and cultural setting, making many references to the documents, thoughts, and ideas that were circulated and expressed. It doesn't claim to be a work of revelation, or even a religious book. As history, it's worth its weight in gold.

Yes, that's possible, too, but rather than seeking out a mortal person when trying to find out where the ideas came from, I hope you're mainly interested in finding out whether or not the idea is something God approves of, or if instead it was inspired by Satan, since those are our 2 main sources of all knowledge concerning either good or evil.

I strongly believe a key part of the Revelation process is studying things out in your mind, and bringing conclusions to the Lord. There have been many cases where my answer has been to the tune of, "You're on the right track. Don't stop now. Keep it up, and return and report again later."

Okay. My focus is more on finding out whether ideas are inspired by either God or Satan, rather than getting down to the level of detail you seem to be focusing on.

I believe this is a key part of the process. A key part of President Kimball's seeking an answer to the Priesthood question was, apart from his own diligent study and pondering and praying, the establishment of a committee to study the historical and scriptural precedent and documents for the Priesthood Ban, to see if there even was one.

It turned up very clearly that there wasn't. I strongly believe this due diligence was a key part of what prepared him to be the one to receive the Revelation clarifying and confirming the conclusion he had come to, where other predecessors had not. I, for one, am extremely grateful that President Kimball didn't give up, and just assume the tradition was correct.